Suppose Mr. Bloggins testifies in a case, and is asked a point blank question like “Did you see the defendant commit aggravated mopery?” Mr. Bloggins say “Yes, I’m absolutely 100%. He moped, and it was very aggravated!”
Now, if the defendant is found not guilty, then this means the finder of fact (the judge) has determined that either he didn’t commit aggravated mopery, or there is some other reason to find him not guilty. As we all know, a finding of not guilty does not mean necessarily innocent. Maybe he had to mope for a justifiable reason.
But let’s say, that it is clear that there was no other reason to find somebody not guilty, because say the defense doesn’t present any defense, other than he didn’t do it.
Is Bloggins at any risk of being charged with perjury, based solely on the fact that the defendant is found not guilty? Or is there some principle, tradition or law that says you cannot use the result of a case as the sole evidence for perjury?